I have small food store. I'm working on an app that will allow my customers to download the app, keep up with events, etc., but most importantly, order from my app menu ahead of time, take their CC payment ahead of time and I have their order waiting for them when they walk in. I want the purchase to now show up in my Square system so I can get started on the order and I would like to use Square POS to take and process the order so I don't have to keep up with two POS systems. This does not seem possible with Square? Suggestions, idea, help?
To my knowledge, that isn't currently possible with any of the available Square APIs. The best you can do is probably to set up a Square online store and allow users to make purchases from your site. Masala Wok is a good example of what this looks like.
I am trying to figure out what is the fastest way the figure out the current user Country. I know there are a lot of location examples online, my actual is question: since I don't care much about precision, is it OK if I use RegionInfo.CurrentRegion.DisplayName; to figure out the user country?
What are the downsides of using this approach (besides precision)?
No, you shouldn't use RegionInfo.CurrentRegion for that.
For example, I live in Montenegro, but RegionInfo.CurrentRegion on my phone will return USA, which is completely irrelevant being almost 4000 miles away from here.
You have to use Geolocator class for that. Here's some sample code.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm starting a new project from scratch and have written User Stores to describe how a given user will interact with the system. But, I'm having trouble understanding how to break the first user story in to tasks without the first one becoming an epic.
For example, if I were building a car and the first user story said something like "As a driver, I would like to be able to change the direction of motion so that I don't hit things.", that would imply a user interface (steering wheel), but also motion (wheels) and everything necessary to link those together (axle, frame, linkage, etc...). In the end, that first user story always seems to represent about 40% of the project because it implies so much about the underlying architecture.
How do you break user stories down for a new project such that the first one doesn't become an epic representing your entire underlying architecture?
You might want to think of your story as a vertical slice of the system. A story may (and often will) touch components in all of the architectural layers of the system. You might therefore want to think of your tasks as the work needed to be done on each of the components that your story touches.
For example, Let's say you have a story like In order to easily be able to follow my friends' tweets, as a registered user, I want to automatically follow all of my gmail contacts that have twitter accounts.
In order to accomplish this, you will have to pass through the UI layer, service layer, persist some data in the data layer, and make an API call to twitter and gmail.
Your tasks might be:
Add an option to the menu
Add a new gmail authentication screen
Add a twitter authentication screen
Add a contact selection screen
Add a controller that calls into your service layer
Write a new service that does the work
Save contacts to the database
Modify your existing gmail API calling service to get contacts
Add a twitter API calling service to follow selected contacts
There: That's 9 possible tasks right there. Now, as a rule, you want your tasks to take roughly 1/2 a day to 2 days, with a bias towards one day (best practice, for sizing). Depending on the difficulty, you might break down these tasks further, or combine some if they are two easy (perhaps the two API calling services are so simple, you'd just have a modify external API services).
At any rate, this is a raw sketch of how to break the stories down.
EDIT:
In response to more question that I got on the subject of breaking stories into tasks, I wrote a blog post about it, and would like to share it here. I've elaborated on the steps needed to break the story. The link is here.
When we started projects under a Scrum management style, the first set of tasks was always broad, or as you describe it: epic. That's inevitable, the framework of any project is usually the most important, largest, and time-consuming portion, but it supports the rest of the project. In order to pare down the scale on overwhelming-ness of how much there is to do see if you can list the MOST essential parts. Then work on defining those tasks as the starting points. Therefore you have a few tasks as starting points for a broad beginning. Hope that makes sense!
A user story describe the what while a task is more about the how.
There is no perfect formula, just add any task that describe how the user story is going to be implemented, documented or tested.
Keep in mind that a task should be estimated in hours, so try to scale and detail the tasks accordingly.
If you feel that you have too many tasks for a story (even if you have 1-8 hours long tasks), then maybe you should consider rewriting your user story in the first place because it's probably too complex.
Good luck
The story that you implement at the beginning can be refined over time. You dont need to think that every story has to be the final version that the user is going to use.
For example, in a recent project we had to develop an application which involved indexing various websites, and matching them against filters created by users, and finally alerting the user of matches (thing of it as google alert on steroids).
If you look at it from one perspective, there is only one story - "As a user I want to get alerts from matching pages". But look at it from another perspective of "what are the risks we want to mitigate". The first risk was that users wouldn't get relevant or better hits compared to google alerts. The second risk was in learning the technology to build this.
So our first user story was simply "As a user I want relevant hits", then we built just the hit matching algorithm on a hardcoded set of pages and hardcoded filters for some early users and got their feedback.
There might actually be a bit of back and forth here with multiple smaller stories to capture learning like "As a user I want more priority to be given to matches in the URL" etc.. these stories comes from the feedback as we iterate over what the early users consider "relevant hits".
Next, we broadened it to "As a user I want hits from specific websites" and we built the indexing architecture to crawl user specified sites and do hit matching on that.
The third story was "As a user I want to define my own filters", and we built this part of the system.
In this way we were able to build up the architecture piece by piece. Through most of the initial part, only early users could use the system, and many pieces of data were hardcoded etc.
After a point, early users could use the system completely. Then we added stories for allowing new users to register and opened it up to the public.
To cut a long story short, the story you implement first could implement only a small part of the final story, hardcoding and scaffolding everything else. And then you can iterate on it over time till you get the story that you might actually release to the public.
I've come to a crossroads with this issue in the past. User stories are supposed to be isolated so you can do them without any other stories, in whatever order, etc. But I found making that happen just made everything more complicated. To me this fell under the "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools" part of the agile manifesto - or at least my interpretation of it.
The ultimate goal is ship. And to ship you have to build, and to build you have to stop futzing with scrum and just get stuff done and make sure you track it.
So what we did was break a cardinal rule of stories and we made some tech stories like "create a preliminary schema". We also declared that some stories were dependent on others, and noted that on the back of the story card.
In the end I felt this type of story was few and far between, and the difficulty of the alternative justified the exception.
I live in city X, but when i try to get my location via ip all the "find location by ip" websites point to city Y. Some ads "Hang tonight with girls in city X" they precisely know my location. How this is possible? Exists some kind of data, a database with ips which those ads site have?
There is no such thing as precise location from an IP... the quality of any such service never reaches 100%... as you write there are several different databases out there - each with some very good and rather weak spots... some databases are updates regularly, some aren't etc.
Those ads use databases which just happen to have their weak spots somewhere where you don't live...
I have never come across any such service that told my city correctly (although it is not small)... they are off by 20-400 miles sometimes even claiming that I am in a very small city far away...
Mostly you can tell the country correctly... although even that can be fooled by proxy/VPN/anonymizer...
For some insight see:
http://www.private.org.il/IP2geo.html
http://ipaddressextensions.codeplex.com/
http://software77.net/geo-ip/
http://jquery-howto.blogspot.com/2009/04/get-geographical-location-geolocation.html
A rather special and different case is this:
One rather precise way to tell the location is when you use a device (usually mobile phone)... these have several sources available (like tower locations, like GPS)... another point are the databases Google and Apple build by using anonymized from phones... they basically aggregate data regarding tower, GPS and WLAN HotSpot/access points reachable... this way they can (with a small margin of error) tell from the WLAN data (like MAC address) the location...
I'm a software developer who has a background in usability engineering. When I studied usability engineering in grad school, one of the professors had a mantra: "You are not the user". The idea was that we need to base UI design on actual user research rather than our own ideas as to how the UI should work.
Since then I've seen some good examples that seem to prove that I'm not the user.
User trying to use an e-mail template authoring tool, and gets stuck trying to enter the pipe (|) character. Problem turns out to be that the pipe on the keyboard has a space in the middle.
In a web app, user doesn't see content below the fold. Not unusual. We tell her to scroll down. She has no idea what we're talking about and is not familiar with the scroll thumb.
I'm listening in on a tech support call. Rep tells the user to close the browser. In the background I hear the Windows shutdown jingle.
What are some other good examples of this?
EDIT: To clarify, I'm looking for examples where developers make assumptions that turn out to be horribly false about what users will know, understand, etc.
I think one of the biggest examples is that expert users tend to play with an application.
They say, "Okay, I have this tool, what can I do with it?"
Your average user sees the ecosystem of an operating system, filesystem, or application as a big scary place where they are likely to get lost and never return.
For them, everything they want to do on a computer is task-based.
"How do I burn a DVD?"
"How do I upload a photo from my camera to this website."
"How do I send my mom a song?"
They want a starting point, a reproducible work flow, and they want to do that every time they have to perform the task. They don't care about streamlining the process or finding the best way to do it, they just want one reproducible way to do it.
In building web applications, I long since learned to make the start page of my application something separate from the menus with task-based links to the main things the application did in a really big font. For the average user, this increased usability hugely.
So remember this: users don't want to "use your application", they want to get something specific done.
In my mind, the most visible example of "developers are not the user" is the common Confirmation Dialog.
In most any document based application, from the most complex (MS Word, Excel, Visual Studio) through the simplest (Notepad, Crimson Editor, UltraEdit), when you close the appliction with unsaved changes you get a dialog like this:
The text in the Untitled file has changed.
Do you want to save the changes?
[Yes] [No] [Cancel]
Assumption: Users will read the dialog
Reality: With an average reading speed of 2 words per second, this would take 9 seconds. Many users won't read the dialog at all.
Observation: Many developers read much much faster than typical users
Assumption: The available options are all equally likely.
Reality: Most (>99%) of the time users will want their changes saved.
Assumption: Users will consider the consequences before clicking a choice
Reality: The true impact of the choice will occur to users a split second after pressing the button.
Assumption: Users will care about the message being displayed.
Reality: Users are focussed on the next task they need to complete, not on the "care and feeding" of their computer.
Assumption: Users will understand that the dialog contains critical information they need to know.
Reality: Users see the dialog as a speedbump in their way and just want to get rid of it in the fastest way possible.
I definitely agree with the bolded comments in Daniel's response--most real users frequently have a goal they want to get to, and just want to reach that goal as easily and quickly as possible. Speaking from experience, this goes not only for computer novices or non-techie people but also for fairly tech-savvy users who just might not be well-versed in your particular domain or technology stack.
Too frequently I've seen customers faced with a rich set of technologies, tools, utilities, APIs, etc. but no obvious way to accomplish their high-level tasks. Sometimes this could be addressed simply with better documentation (think comprehensive walk-throughs), sometimes with some high-level wizards built on top of command-line scripts/tools, and sometimes only with a fundamental re-prioritization of the software project.
With that said... to throw another concrete example on the pile, there's the Windows start menu (excerpt from an article on The Old New Thing blog):
Back in the early days, the taskbar
didn't have a Start button.
...
But one thing kept getting kicked up
by usability tests: People booted up
the computer and just sat there,
unsure what to do next.
That's when we decided to label the
System button "Start".
It says, "You dummy. Click here." And
it sent our usability numbers through
the roof, because all of a sudden,
people knew what to click when they
wanted to do something.
As mentioned by others here, we techie folks are used to playing around with an environment, clicking on everything that can be clicked on, poking around in all available menus, etc. Family members of mine who are afraid of their computers, however, are even more afraid that they'll click on something that will "erase" their data, so they'd prefer to be given clear directions on where to click.
Many years ago, in a CMS, I stupidly assumed that no one would ever try to create a directory with a leading space in the name .... someone did, and made many other parts of the system very very sad.
On another note, trying to explain to my mother to click the Start button to turn the computer off is just a world of pain.
How about the apocryphal tech support call about the user with the broken "cup holder" (CD/ROM)?
Actually, one that bit me was cut/paste -- I always trim my text inputs now since some of my users cut/paste text from emails, etc. and end up selecting extra whitespace. My tests never considered that people would "type" in extra characters.
Today's GUIs do a pretty good job of hiding the underlying OS. But the idosyncracies still show through.
Why won't the Mac let me create a folder called "Photos: Christmas 08"?
Why do I have to "eject" a mounted disk image?
Can't I convert a JPEG to TIFF just by changing the file extension?
(The last one actually happened to me some years ago. It took forever to figure out why the TIFF wasn't loading correctly! It was at that moment that I understood why Apple used to use embedded file types (as metadata) and to this day I do not understand why they foolishly went back to file extensions. Oh, right; it's because Unix is a superior OS.)
I've seen this plenty of times, it seems to be something that always comes up. I seem to be the kind of person who can pick up on these kind of assumptions (in some circumstances), but I've been blown away by what the user was doing other many times.
As I said, it's something I'm quite familiar with. Some of the software I've worked on is used by the general public (as opposed to specially trained people) so we had to be ready for this kind of thing. Yet I've seen it not be taken into account.
A good example is a web form that needs to be completed. We need this form completed, it's important to the process. The user is no good to us if they don't complete the form, but the more information we get out of them the better. Obviously these are two conflicting demands. If just present the user a screen of 150 fields (random large number) they'll run away scared.
These forms had been revised many times in order to improve things, but users weren't asked what they wanted. Decisions were made based on the assumptions or feelings of various people, but how close those feelings were to actual customers wasn't taken into account.
I'm also going to mention the corollary to Bevan's "The users will read the dialog" assumption. Operating off the "the users don't read anything" assumption makes much more sense. Yet people who argue that the user's don't read anything will often suggest putting bits of long dry explanatory text to help users who are confused by some random poor design decision (like using checkboxes for something that should be radio buttons because you can only select one).
Working any kind of tech support can be very informative on how users do (or do not) think.
pretty much anything at the O/S level in Linux is a good example, from the choice of names ("grep" obviously means "search" to the user!) to the choice of syntax ("rm *" is good for you!)
[i'm not hatin' on linux, it's just chock full of unix-legacy un-usability examples]
How about the desktop and wallpaper metaphors? It's getting better, but 5-10 years ago was the bane of a lot of remote tech support calls.
There's also the backslash vs. slash issue, the myriad names for the various keyboard symbols, and the antiquated print screen button.
Modern operating systems are great because they all support multiple user profiles, so everyone that uses my application on the same workstation can have their own settings and user data. Only, a good portion of the support requests I get are asking how to have multiple data files under the same user account.
Back in my college days, I used to train people on how to use a computer and the internet. I'd go to their house, setup their internet service show them email and everything. Well there was this old couple (late 60's). I spent about three hours showing them how to use their computer, made sure they could connect to the internet and everything. I leave feeling very happy.
That weekend I get a frantic call, about them not being able to check their email. Now I'm in the middle of enjoying my weekend but decide to help them out, and walk through all the things, 30 minutes latter, I ask them if they have two phone lines..."of course we only have one" Needless to say they forgot that they need to connect to the internet first (Yes this was back in the day of modems).
I supposed I should have setup shortcuts like DUN - > Check Email Step 1, Eduora - Check Email Step 2....
What users don't know, they will make up. They often work with an incorrect theory of how an application works.
Especially for data entry, users tend to type much faster than developers which can cause a problem if the program is slow to react.
Story: Once upon a time, before the personal computer, there was timesharing. A timesharing company's customer rep told me that once when he was giving a "how to" class to two or three nice older women, he told them how to stop a program that was running (in case it was started in error or taking to long.) He had one of the students type ^K, and the timesharing terminal responded "Killed!". The lady nearly had a heart attack.
One problem that we have at our company is employees who don't trust the computer. If you computerize a function that they do on paper, they will continue to do it on paper, while entering the results in the computer.